Holocaust denial is simultaneously an expression of regret that the Shoah was not completed, and an expression of the wish that it should be completed. In places like Notting Hill, the ‘revision’ of history is a topic for parlour games and casuistry. In Germany, Austria or Italy, things are not nearly so jolly.

Bloke arrested at Heathrow — the filth comes crawling out of the woodwork.

Here’s a Guardian headline (“Our Man in Kabul says US strategy is failing”), and a Times headline (“British envoy says mission is doomed, according to leaked memo”), neither of which are supported by the articles they adorn. The Guardian has been obliged to print an obtuse “correction” above the online version of its article, but in both cases, what we have here are headlines not supported by the facts reported in the articles, and claims in the articles not supported by the facts.

The “leaked” memo/report/cable thingamajig that forms the basis of both articles is really just a translation of a story in some obscure French satirical weekly, which published an account by a French diplomat of an opinion the British envoy is alleged to have expressed, which the British foreign office unequivocally denies that the British envoy uttered. The Brits say the whole thing is actually a “parody” of what the envoy said, deliberately exaggerated so as to tell Paris exactly what it wanted to hear.

What do you call it when you end up knowing less about a subject, as a direct result of reading an article about it in a newspaper?